Subsidiarity, Justice, and the Common Good

I've been very busy this week and haven't yet gotten around to writing my commentary on the middle section of Rerum Novarum, but we've already seen that one of the key doctrines developed in the encyclical is the doctrine of subsidiarity. Like many key doctrines, it is too often over-simplified and consequently misconstrued. As we read later documents, we'll be able to see how this doctrine gets elaborated as the social teaching tradition develops, but those who can't wait to know more might read a paper recently published online by Patrick McKinley Brennan of the Villanova University School of Law, entitled  “Subsidiarity in the Tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine,” which will soon be published as one chapter in Subsidiarity in Comparative Perspective, edited by Michelle Evans and Augusto Zimmermann.

In his abstract, Brennan says:

Subsidiarity is often described as a norm calling for the devolution of power or for performing social functions at the lowest possible level. In Catholic social doctrine, it is neither. Subsidiarity is the fixed and immovable ontological principle according to which the common good is to be achieved through a plurality of social forms. Subsidiarity is derivative of social justice, a recognition that societies other than the state constitute unities of order, possessing genuine authority, which which are to be respected and, when necessary, aided. Subsidiarity is not a policy preference for checking power with power. This chapter traces the emergence of the principle of subsidiarity to the neo-Scholastic revival that contributed to the Church's defense against the French Revolution's onslaught aimed at eliminating societies other than the state.

It seems to me he makes an important point: that social justice demands that all authentic societies (associations among people which “constitute unities of order”) be respected. The State's duty toward such societies is not to subsume them into itself, but to aid them when necessary.)We see this indicated very clearly in the middle section of Rerum Novarum.) These smaller societies -- including the family and the local community -- are themselves necessary to the common good, just as is the State itself.

I also find interesting the fact that he sees this doctrine emerging from the aftermath of the French Revolution (1789-99). The French Revolution, of course, infamously attempted to destroy all unities of order (such as the Church and the aristocracy) that might compete with the authority of the secular State, perhaps the first time in the Christian era that such a thing was attempted. I look forward to reading Brennan's paper.

Subsidiarity and our public schools

There was a time when our government(s) had more respect for local solutions, as indicated in this article from Accuracy in Academia.

Subsidiarity Due For Comeback

Malcolm A. Kline, November 27, 2012

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity, whereby that level of government closest to the problem is the one best-equipped to deal with it, may be viewed as quaint but in public education, its inverse could be seen as disastrous. “The 20th century was marked by dramatic consolidation of school districts in the United States,” Tom Loveless and Katharyn Field of the Brookings Institution found. “As the number of districts shrank from 117,000 in 1940 to 15,000 in 2000, the size of districts ballooned.”

“The average district served 217 children in 1940, as opposed to 3,000 in 2000.” Their research is quoted in a new report by the Heartland Institute, written by Joseph L. Bast and Joy Pullmann.

“In a 2012 poll conducted by Braun Research, Inc., 37 percent of parents said they would prefer to send their children to private schools yet fewer than 10 percent of parents do,” Bast and Pullmann write. “Seventy-one percent of mothers and 56 percent of Americans favor school vouchers.”

“In the Washington, D. C. area, almost three-quarters of those polled support the local voucher program, and it had a parental satisfaction rate of more than 90 percent.”
Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, e-mail mal.kline@academia.org.

By the way, it should be noted that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply only to government, it applies to any person or agency who can address a problem of need in the community. The principle of subsidiarity requires that the need be addressed by whoever is closest to the needy person and able to help them. If the immediate family can't address the needs of one of its members, they should look for help first among those closest -- extended family and immediate neighbors, then the larger local community, and so on. This is why the principle of subsidiarity supports homeschooling. It is only because not all parents are equipped to school their own children that we need public schools.

Rerum Novarum §26-42: Analysis

In this week’s selection, the encyclical continues making the case for the Church’s legitimate and beneficent role in society, not competing but cooperating with the State for the common good. And, indeed, Pope Leo cannot refrain from pointing out that the Church, motivated by Christian charity, can and will go much further than the State in alleviating the suffering of the poor, in both their spiritual and their material needs. Not only that, but She influences the hearts and minds of citizens also to desire to do good toward their fellows. So governments should not seek to marginalize religion, because it helps the State do its legitimate job, i.e., maintain a safe environment in which all its citizens may prosper.

This view of the nature of government, and the Church’s relationship to it, is laid out more fully in Leo’s encyclical Immortale Dei (“On the Christian Constitution of the State). The third paragraph of that document sums it up nicely:

It is not difficult to determine what would be the form and character of the State were it governed according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life, be it family, social, or civil, with his fellow-men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But as no society can hold together unless someone be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has consequently God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. “There is no power but from God.”

Thus, both the Church and the State ultimately serve God. Not only that, but some kind of State (i.e., governing structure) is necessary and natural if individuals and society as a whole are to prosper.

Once the case for the Church and her agencies has been made, the encyclical goes on to delineate the State’s legitimate role in ordering society. First, it is pointed out that it is in the State’s best interest to see to it that its laws and institutions allow people to live good lives, as this will promote peace and the common good. In particular, the State should see to it that the rights of the working class are protected, since they make up the bulk of society and their labor serves the whole of society. In other words, it would be foolish and impractical to allow workers to be victimized by their wealthy employers, because without a healthy working class everything would grind to a halt.

Still, the State’s job seems to be, not to interfere in and manage the daily lives of its citizens, but to see that justice prevails in public and private matters. That is, it should stand by in case things go wrong, or appear to be about to go wrong, and to intervene only when necessary to avoid a breakdown (such as work stoppages or riots) in the normal operations of society and industry, and only until peace and justice have been restored, which would include addressing the causes of such disturbances -- e.g., the lamentable conditions that drive workers to strike. Bearing in mind the dangerous ideas put forth by Socialists, Leo also addresses specifically acts of class warfare that would violate justice, such as workers' seizing the property of the owners of capital, as well as greedy capitalists' treatment of workers as wage slaves in order to wring the maximum profit from their labors -- either of these would be grossly unjust, and the State should guard against them.

However, the State’s role is also to safeguard the good of the individual, even when the individual might not want it to do so, much as a father must sometimes do things for his child’s good, even if the child does not recognize that action as good. So, for instance, a worker desperate to earn money might agree to poor wages, excessively long hours, or bad working conditions, but the State should not allow it. It is interesting that Leo claims that the State should safeguard not only the material well-being of its citizens, but also their moral well-being, by making sure that workers have time not only to recuperate from their labors, but also to spend time with their families and to worship. This is in accord with the Church's view that the State “no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has consequently God for its author.”

Be thankful that Thanksgiving is still a national holiday

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman

With religious liberty increasingly under fire, and religion almost completely erased from the civic sphere, we should be grateful that, here in the United States, we still have a national holiday on which we are exhorted to give thanks to our Creator.   

The Catholic Thing posted some wise word from Bl. John Henry Newman for Thanksgiving Day. Here are some of them:

We are not our own, any more than what we possess is our own. . . .We are God’s property by creation, by redemption, by regeneration. He has a triple claim upon us. Is it not our happiness thus to view the matter? Is it any happiness, or any comfort, to consider that we are our own? It may be thought so by the young and prosperous. These may think it a great thing to have everything, as they suppose, their own way, — to depend on no one, — to have to think of nothing out of sight, — to be without the irksomeness of continual acknowledgment, continual prayer, continual reference of what they do to the will of another. But as time goes on, they, as all men, will find that independence was not made for man — that it is an unnatural state — may do for a while, but will not carry us on safely to the end. No, we are creatures; and, as being such, we have two duties, to be resigned and to be thankful.

Let us then view God’s providences towards us more religiously than we have hitherto done. Let us try to gain a truer view of what we are, and where we are, in His kingdom. Let us humbly and reverently attempt to trace His guiding hand in the years which we have hitherto lived. Let us thankfully commemorate the many mercies He has vouchsafed to us in time past, the many sins He has not remembered, the many dangers He has averted, the many prayers He has answered, the many mistakes He has corrected, the many warnings, the many lessons, the much light, the abounding comfort which He has from time to time given. Let us dwell upon times and seasons, times of trouble, times of joy, times of trial, times of refreshment.

Read more.

“In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.” Happy Thanksgiving Day.

Rerum Novarum in Australia: "Putting the common good back into the Commonwealth"

Australian Senator John Madigan

As we've seen in our reading so far of Rerum Novarum, one of the key ideas is that citizens -- both business owners and their employees -- and the State should cooperate for the common good. Injustice results when one element is favored over the other. This idea still "has legs" in our contemporary world, and it animated a lecture presented by Australian Senator John Madigan when he spoke recently during the 2012 Rerum Novarum Oration at Australian Catholic University.

The Rerum Novarum Oration is an annual event sponsored by the Office of Justice and Peace of the Melbourne Archdiocese, to commemorate Pope Leo's encyclical as the encyclical "that formed the foundation of the Church’s social doctrine in modern times." In addition to Senator Madigan, Dr Matthew Tan, Lecturer in Theology and Philosophy at Campion College, Sydney, also gave a keynote address.

Click here to read transcripts of the two speeches or listen to the podcasts.

Vatican Radio interview on the significance of Rerum Novarum

Vatican Radio has begun broadcasting interviews discussing works of the Catholic Social Tradition. The first addresses Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, and includes a discussion of the context in which the first social encyclical was written, and its reception in the world at large. Click the link at the end to find the audio links to the interview. 

Leo XIII: father of social encyclicals... 

(Vatican Radio) Leo XIII who died on the 20th July 1903 has gone down in history as the first pope ever to have written a social encyclical.

It was 1891 and the title of this document was “Rerum Novarum,” Latin words highlighting the novelty of the theme explored [sic -- a misunderstanding of the title, as I pointed out in my commentary. --LN].

Veronica Scarisbrick asks Professor of Catholic Social Teaching at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas here in Rome, Dominican Father Alejandro Crosthwaite, to place this encyclical into an historical context for us.

While Father Crosthwaite explains how the Catholic Church's concern in social issues dates back to the times of the Fathers of the Church, he also notes how this document breaks new ground. As for the first time in history a Roman Pontiff begins to realise the need to address social issues in a new way, expressing concern for the condition of workers.

Read more. Listen to interview.

Rerum Novarum §26-42: Summary

[On the respective roles of Church and State in the lives of citizens]

[26]The Church’s role is not merely to teach what is right, but to influence the hearts and minds of men so that they willingly act according to their duty, control their passions and appetites, love God and their fellow man, and cultivate virtue. [27] History shows many examples of civil society being revived and restored by Christian institutions, restoring all things in Christ. If society today is to be healed, this can happen only by a return to Christian life and the principles upon which it was built. [28] The Church is not so preoccupied with men’s spiritual well-being that she has no concern for his material good; on the contrary, she deeply desires that the poor may better themselves and, by urging Christian morality, she helps men avoid the greed of possession and the thirst for pleasure, resulting in social equity and temporal prosperity that are pleasing to God. [29] The Church does not merely teach virtue, but also acts directly to alleviate the suffering of the poor, which even her enemies have praised throughout her history. [30] Yet now there are those who blame, rather than praise, the Church for her care of the poor and the suffering, claiming that this is not the Church’s job, but the job of the State. But the State will never display the heroic devotion and self-sacrifice of Christian charity, a virtue which can be nurtured only in the Church and drawn from the Sacred Hear of Jesus Christ.

[31] Nonetheless, the agencies of the Church and those of civil society should be united in their common concern, so that the greatest good can be achieved. Therefore we should consider what role the State can justly play in providing relief. [32] The State, properly speaking, refers not to any particular form of government but to any government conformable to right reason, natural law, and the dictates of Divine law, as set out in the encyclical On the Christian Constitution of the State [see also Catholic Encyclopedia online]. Its chief duty is to make sure that its laws and institutions promote and protect public well-being and private prosperity; this being so, it should promote everything that makes its citizens better and happier, including public morality, well-ordered family life, respect for religion and justice, moderate taxation, productive use of land, etc. If these things are seen to, there will be fewer poor and less need for public relief.

[33] The State should recognize that all parts of society must be well regulated and well served, and therefore should not favor the rich over the poor, but provide distributive justice toward each and every social class alike. [34] Although it is right to honor those who directly serve the State, public servants engaged in legislation and administration of the government, nonetheless it must be recognized that the commonwealth could not prosper without the contributions of the laboring class, through whose efforts the State prospers. Therefore, whatever promotes the welfare of workers is good for the society as a whole, and should be favored.

[35] While, as we have said, the State must not absorb the individual or the family, nonetheless it should show a paternal interest in the well-being of its individual members, just as it should safeguard the commonwealth as a whole. [36] Since the State’s responsibility is to secure the public good, it may intervene in public or private affairs when that general good is threatened by circumstances or events; for instance, when workers are not afforded time to carry out familial or religious duties, or if they are required to work in unhealthy or immoral conditions, or if a threatened labor strike would endanger the public peace. In such cases, the law may intervene, provided that it do no more than required to remedy the situation.

[37] While all legitimate human rights must be protected by law, the poor and the needy should be especially protected, since they have no resources to fall back on as the rich do, aside from the State’s assistance. [38]  Nonetheless, the right to private property must be protected by law, nor should private property be seized and redistributed under pretext of justice. [39] The State should ensure humane working conditions and reasonable pay, in order to forestall workers' strikes, because the disruptions caused by strikes are injurious to the public peace.

[40] The State should also protect the working man’s spiritual good, for his duty to God is sacred. To interfere with a man’s duty toward God is to violate God’s rights, not just man’s. [41] Therefore, Sundays and holy days should be days of rest, which allow man to turn his attention from mundane concerns to the worship he owes to God.

[42] The human condition of workers should be respected, in such a way that they are not used simply as tools to create profit for their greedy employers. Therefore, the hours and conditions of work should not be so taxing as to work men beyond their endurance, nor should women and children be required to work as long or as hard as grown men, and all workers should be given enough time off to recuperate from their labors. Even if workers and employers should agree on conditions that would make no allowance for man’s duty to God and himself, doing so would be wrong.

Lincoln and Leo: Substantial agreement

I saw this image on a certain well-known social networking site, and found it remarkable that Abraham Lincoln's view of human nature and natural justice seems so much in accord with the Church's view as articulated in Rerum Novarum. What do you think?

What do we mean by "society"?

As we can see from the founding document of the Catholic Social Teaching Tradition, P. Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, the Church's understanding of society, based on natural law, is one in which individuals are members of society first by being members of natural families: father, mother, children. This family is the basic social unit. Families make up communities, communities are served by the State. "Society" is not the "State," society is families united in communities.

The recent election season recently concluded here in the U.S. demonstrated that this is no longer the only accepted view of society -- and in some spheres may not even be the predominant view. According to Joan Frawley Desmond's analysis in the National Catholic Register, "2012 Election Year Offered Dueling Visions of Society," the national election results can be understood in terms of two radically different understandings of the nature of society.

Last May, the Obama-Biden campaign rolled out an online slideshow, “The Life of Julia,” that explained “how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime.”

The narrative does not feature a boyfriend, let alone a husband, but Julia benefits from free birth control, letting her “focus on her work rather than worry about her health.” But if Obama is defeated, Julia could be denied the same health-care benefits because “Romney supports the Blunt Amendment — which would place Julia’s health-care decisions in the hands of her employer.”

This fictional Julia is presented as the typical American who benefits from Obama's leadership, and apparently she represents the self-image of enough Americans that Barack Obama was favored in the elections over Mitt Romney, identified with the traditional understanding of family.

Ask Catholic scholars and commentators to distill the message of the Democratic presidential campaign, and they may well cite “The Life of Julia.” That’s in part because it presents the government as a reliable placeholder for spouses and families, but also because it elevates the right to free contraception over First Amendment conscience protections.

 “There really are competing irreconcilable visions of society on offer in this election,” said Gerard Bradley, a constitutional scholar at the University of Notre Dame who has spoken out against the HHS mandate.

“The Obama campaign's ‘Julia’ ad sums up the president's vision” of the individual as “basically alone in society,” noted Bradley, editor of the newly released Challenges to Religious Liberty in the Twenty-First Century.

“Julia has no family and evidently no religious community to support her,” Bradley said. “She does have a set of aspirations and goals, and the government is her financial angel — Uncle Sam as Daddy Warbucks, if you will.”

This view of society as atomistic individuals connected only through the State is clearly at odds with the view assumed by Rerum Novarum. Frawley goes on to cite analysts who fault Mitt Romney for failing to present with adequate vitality the competing, traditional understandings of society, the individual, marriage and family. 

“The questions about life and marriage were effectively sidelined by the Republican Party in the interests of making the election about stewardship,” agreed Rusty Reno, the editor of First Things.

With the election now decided, he said that “one of the most important things Catholics can do is set about reforming the Republican Party so that is a more effective vehicle for Catholic social teaching.”

Read more.

Rerum Novarum §1-25: Commentary

The title of this encyclical

Res Novae

Before I get into the meat of the matter, let me get one thing off my chest: while the original, Latin title of this document is Rerum Novarum (the genitive form of res novae, which is itself plural), to give it the English title “New Things” or “Concerning New Things,” as is too often done, is not only wrong, but misleading. First, let me explain why it is wrong, from a purely linguistic point of view. From ancient times, the Latin phrase res novae has meant “revolution” (the literal, violent kind, not the figurative kind as in “revolutionary new toothpaste!”); yes, the word “res” means “thing(s)” (same spelling singular or plural) and the adjective novae means “new” (plural, feminine), but when you put them together they mean revolution. (This meaning did not change from the time of Cicero until the present.) “Rerum novarum,” being the genitive form of “res novae” means “of revolution.”

You may know that, as is usual with papal encyclicals, the official title (Latin) is taken from the first phrase of the document in its original language. You see this in the first sentence of the official English translation of the document: “That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, ...” Notice that the “official” English title of the document is usually something like “Concerning the Conditions of Labor,” which sums up what the document is about, rather than translating the opening phrase.

Now, why does this matter, if you’re just a reader and not a linguistic scholar geek? I would say it matters because it misleads the reader regarding the tone and subject of the encyclical. It is not just a rejection of “new things” but a refutation of the Socialist/Marxist claim that workers can find justice only through violent revolution, destroying the bourgeois class, stealing their property so that it can be “redistributed” or held “for the collective” by a socialist State, etc. To call this document “Of New Things” is to suggest that it is a reactionary, “anti-progressive” document (a charge often levied also against Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors), rejecting new notions simply because they are new, which is not the case at all. Far from being reactionary, this encyclical is itself “revolutionary” (in the figurative sense of changing the way we think about things) and proactive, in that it is perhaps the first encyclical intended to address problems pertinent to the world at large, rather than the Church per se. Pope Leo could see things heading off down a dangerously wrong path, and wanted to help steer them back in a better direction. He also wanted to demonstrate that the world needs the Church as a civilizing influence.

Prophetic rejection of socialist principles

And, as history has shown, P. Leo was absolutely right about the Socialist project, as we have already seen in the dismal failure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR or the “Communist Union”). Dragging everyone down to the same level was demoralizing and made workers much less productive. When I was a teenager, I took part in a summer program called the American Citizenship Seminar; the keynote speaker that week was Dr. Nicholas Nyaradi, former Hungarian Minister of Finance, who had survived the Communist takeover of his country by hiding for weeks in the cellar of a bombed out building and then escaped to the United States, where he became a well-known public speaker about the evils of Communism and, later, worked for the U.S. State Department. I didn’t know anything about politics in those days, but I remember vividly Dr. Nyaradi’s tales of the way Soviet Socialism brainwashed the citizenry to believe that they were lucky to live in the miserable conditions that prevailed there, convincing them that people in capitalist countries were much worse off. (Take a look at this video of Dr. Nyaradi speaking on U.S. television about the conditions in which people lived behind the Iron Curtain.)

In the 1980s, when Communism was clearly on its last legs in the USSR, they tried an experiment in allowing some of the thousands of collective farms to benefit directly from their own farm’s productivity (something like share-cropping?). They found that farm workers who were paid a percentage of their farm’s output worked harder and were happier, as well as being much more productive – so the experiment was a success, right? No, because workers at neighboring farms – the more “traditional” collective farms, where there was no incentive to excel – despised their productive neighbors, attacked them, destroyed their equipment, etc. Striving to excel may be laudable in a free society, but under socialism it was considered ... well, anti-social. The experiment was abandoned.

Children starving in N. Korea

Anyone paying any attention at all these days will know that in countries where socialism (a.k.a. communism) is still in place -- Vietnam, N. Korea, China, Cuba – people live in miserable conditions. In recent years, starvation has been a terrible problem in Vietnam and N. Korea, for instance, while China has been able to avoid starvation so far only by such brutal and barbaric measures as their despicable “one child” policy. My point is simply that Pope Leo, writing more than 25 years before the Bolshevik revolution, was prophetic in foreseeing the evils that would be produced by enactment of socialist political theory.

Embattled truths

What I find saddest about reading Rerum Novarum is that many of the ideas upon which Pope Leo based his argument – those taken from natural law – are even more embattled today than they were more than one hundred years ago: the sanctity of human life, marriage, the family. In fact, natural law theory itself, which dates back to the philosophy of ancient Greece, has been written off by contemporary secularists as being religion thinly veiled. You will not find any pubic figure or pundit who denigrates religion yet embraces Natural Law theory, whereas in Pope Leo’s day one could easily be agnostic or even an atheist and still appreciate the Natural Law.

Ape enjoying his human rights.

This discrepancy is due, at least in part, to the deeply pervasive Darwinian view of the human person as merely a highly-evolved animal, with no special “nature” setting him above other intelligent primates. In fact, in countries such as Spain (where socialism has been given pretty free reign over the last 30 years), laws have even been passed granting apes equal rights with humans; at the same time, the family has been all but destroyed by laws liberalizing divorce, granting children “rights” to sue their parents, denying parental rights when minor children seek abortion or contraception, and now, in many places, redefining marriage to include civil unions between same-sex couples.

Yet natural law still pertains

However, if you take another look at Leo’s reasoning, it still makes sense: no matter how vehemently you try to claim that a gorilla is pretty much the same as a man, no gorilla is able to plan for the future, cultivate land, or provide for its children and grandchildren. Gorilla households will not be counted on any nation’s census, nor will any gorilla go to court to divorce its mate nor contact its congressional representative to demand better roads, lower taxes, or greater respect for gorillas. Clearly, human beings are different from highly-evolved apes; our intelligence differs from that of apes not just quantitatively but qualitatively, and 99.99% of people not living in mental institutions would recognize this.

To anyone reading these words who recognizes that men differ from apes in some real way, it should be clear that that Leo is right when he says that man is prior to the state – i.e., there can be no “State” without people. Actually, this is true even if you do conflate apes and men – even gorilla herds have a leader, and there can be no leader without someone to lead, no government without someone to govern. So at least with regard to temporal progression, we must concede that the human individual comes before the government; does that mean that we must recognize the more figurative precedence or priority of man over State, i.e., that the human individual is of greater importance, sanctity, significance than the faceless State? You will find cultures that do not necessarily affirm this kind of human priority – but, then, they tend to be places where Socialism has gotten a firm hold (see those listed above); and, perhaps, those where socialism or some other brand of brutal totalitarianism may yet get a grip.

When differences are not respected

Another important idea that P. Leo brings up which has gotten lost in recent decades, at least in the United States, is the need for a just society to provide employment for people of all kinds of talents and abilities. Before so many manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, before menial jobs were relegated to illegal aliens, before all high school students were brainwashed to believe that they had to invest the time and expense required by a college education, before children began to be aborted for possessing the wrong gene or having too many chromosomes, we accepted this truth. But now we just try to crush everyone down into the same cookie-cutter molds and churn out the “educational product” that the market demands. When we can’t produce the kinds of workers “needed,” we either export the jobs or import the workers – forget about our own people who need honorable employment.

Saved from Socialism, but not from Capitalism?

You may be well paid, but you work like a slave.

The fact is, however, that many of the ideas put forward in Rerum Novarum did make a difference for the better, encouraging employers to create better working conditions, providing better compensation and paid leave. The idea that workers and employees are necessarily at odds with one another has, I hope, been put to rest. However, all those improvements have created a new kind of wage (or salary) slavery. These days Americans, at least, are more affected by the extremes of capitalism than those of socialism. Most Americans, it seems, are employed by huge, faceless mega-corporations which have been granted legal status as “persons” (although unborn individual human beings are not); salaried workers are often required to be on call virtually around the clock and are tethered to their jobs by computers and smartphones even when they are on vacation. Workers theoretically accrue days off that they are never allowed to actually take off. One guy I know has to threaten to quit in order to get a few days’ vacation approved. While, of course, infamously, the heads of these megacorps are pulling in obscene salaries and bonuses – even when they do a lousy job. Even if they tank the business.

Here in America the American dream has become, for many, a nightmare. I don’t know about you, dear reader, but just about everyone I know who has a job (and many do not) is so overworked and overstressed that they dream of being able to quit and do something, anything, else. Those of us who have lost our jobs are enjoying the time to recuperate from the job stress (even as we deal with the no-job stress), and we’re not really eager to leap back into it by becoming employed again. Many of us would be happy to make do with less pay if we could just have better lives (no, that doesn’t necessarily mean a new car every two years, and the latest high-tech gadgets in every room of our oversized homes). “Homeowners” don’t actually own their homes, the banks do. And in many of those zero-lot-line suburban homes, many are once again dreaming of owning enough land to raise a few vegetables and a couple of goats and chickens, far from the madding crowd (perhaps Candide was right, in the end?).

In my analysis of this section of Rerum Novarum I said, “All of this, the encyclical suggests, should be evident to any objective, rational person, so a just and well-ordered society is attainable just by respecting natural law and justice.” That was true in 1891 and it’s still true today, but unfortunately the modern world has lost all respect for natural law and natural justice. Our laws no longer enshrine justice, they just enshrine legality, which is by no means the same thing. (Need examples? Oh, don’t get me started! I’ll bet you can think of five unjust laws before drawing your next breath.)

Clearly, Pope Leo was right to suggest that the world needs religion to keep it on course, because our rational human nature is also fallen human nature and, left to our own devices, we will make a hell on earth for ourselves, be it a socialist or a capitalist hell. The more the Church is marginalized and scorned, the more She is needed to help bind up our wounds and put us back on our feet, on the right path. Well, let’s read on, and see what else the good pope has to tell us. Maybe he’ll have something that will speak to our twenty-first century woes. Up next: paragraphs 26-42.

Rerum Novarum §1-25: Analysis

The first thing to notice is that, although this document is addressed to the Bishops of the Church (as all encyclicals are), it clearly is intended for the world at large. Here Pope Leo is not instructing merely the Bishops or the Catholic faithful, but all those who recognize the problems between workers and capitalists and are concerned to find a feasible solution. The second thing to notice is that the Pope is directly refuting socialist theory – this document reads like a point-by-point refutation of The Communist Manifesto. All of the key claims and proposals of the Manifesto are shown to be erroneous and unjust: the idea that class warfare is inevitable, the proposal to eliminate private property, the notion that the State should control of the family. So the encyclical begins by saying, in essence, “Yes, there is a problem concerning the condition of workers, and something must be done, but the socialist project is not the solution.”

The second thing to notice is that the first twenty paragraphs of the encyclical base this counterargument entirely on natural law, not religious doctrine. One does not have to be a Christian to recognize that Socialist theory contravenes natural law and natural justice, and therefore cannot be expected to succeed in the long run.

The encyclical goes on to claim that ownership of private property is a natural right, basing this claim on a natural anthropology which acknowledges that what distinguishes Man from Beast is his rational nature – the ability to look toward, and plan for, the future, to think not only of his own needs but those of his posterity. One of the problems of socialism is that it tends to think of man in materialistic terms, to reduce him to an animal whose physical needs must be met without considering his moral and spiritual needs. In such a materialistic view, the family is not an intimate society but a collection of discrete individuals who cling together simply out of mutual need; if the State can meet their needs, the family can be dissolved. Leo reasserts the idea that the family has its own integrity and value.

It is worth noticing how this case is made: man (the individual) is prior to the State – this means both that there are individuals before there is any organized State, and that the individual “takes priority” over the State. When a man marries and generates children, he creates the most basic kind of society: father, mother, and children. This is “natural society,” which, again, is prior to the State, both with respect to time (there are families before there is any larger, organized society) and with respect to importance (the State serves a larger society made up of families). The claim of a “natural right” to own property is based on this understanding: a laborer’s work for wages is motivated by his desire to provide for himself and his family, not just for their present subsistence, but for their continued well-being; also, property allows a man to “make his mark,” to impress his own effort and personality on the land he cultivates, thus truly making it his own, and something that will be an inheritance for his children. To interfere with this right is to act both unnaturally and unjustly, as it would also be for the larger community (the State) to interfere with the internal governance of more basic society (the family) – except in those rare cases when the family is experiencing troubles that it cannot deal with on its own.

The encyclical continues to apply the measure of nature as it considers the makeup of the larger society, asserting that the Socialists also err when they claim to be able to make all men equal. While people may be morally equal, they are not equal with respect to abilities and talents; the just society must allow each one to contribute according to his abilities and must not impose an unnatural conformity. Not only would this violate human dignity, but it would work against any natural motivation to do well, creating instead an environment in which envy would flourish, whenever any individual did better than others. So the egalitarian society envisioned by the socialists would be, again, both unnatural and unjust.

Having pointed out the absurdity of the socialist project to reduce all men to “one dead level,” the Pope goes on to assert that the natural inequality of men is actually advantageous for society, because a well-ordered society requires many different kinds of labor and talents, allowing each person to contribute what he has been given by nature. Moreover, since hard work is natural and salutary, and suffering is inevitable, it is absurd for socialists to claim that they can build a world in which all will be free from pain and trouble.

One more key claim of the socialists, the inevitability of class hatred, is refuted. In fact, says P. Leo, quite the opposite is true: capitalists need workers, and workers need employers, so the classes are bound together by mutual need, and a just society will acknowledge this and encourage concord and mutual respect between the classes, and remind them of their duties toward each other.

All of this, the encyclical suggests, should be evident to any objective, rational person, so a just and well-ordered society is attainable just by respecting natural law and justice. But P. Leo also wants to make a case for the indispensable value of the Church in modern society, from which it was being marginalized even in his day. While natural law can show that different social classes are bound together by mutual need, only Christian charity can unite them in bonds of brotherly love and motivate them to go beyond mere duty in dealing with one another. When we realize, as Christ has taught us, that our ultimate happiness cannot be served by anything this world offers, we will not cling to wealth, comfort, and social status – the wealthy will be more generous and acknowledge their responsibility toward the less fortunate, the poor will be less envious and grasping when all recognize that Christ himself did not scorn poverty or suffering, and that their true reward is in Heaven.

In this early part of Rerum Novarum, we see that many key doctrines which have since been recognized as the pillars of Catholic Social Teaching do not depend strictly on a Christian viewpoint: subsidiarity, the inherent dignity of the human person, the primacy of the family in society, solidarity with the poor. It also touches on topics being contested in our own day, such as the nature of marriage and the family. This document has persuasive force for Christians and non-Christians alike.

Something to help us keep perspective -- the real meaning of life

Remember that Catholic Social Teaching, like all Catholic doctrine, is merely an application of Charity, and the hope that we have in Christ. I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do! Enjoy! Vivat Christus Rex!

New! Subscribe to this blog on Kindle

A bout of influenza has delayed publication of the analysis and commentary on the first 25 paragraphs of Rerum Novarum, but they'll be coming in a day or two, d.v. Meanwhile, readers may like to know that this blog is now available on Kindle (99 cents per month delivery charge). Great for those who dislike reading from a computer screen!

For anyone reading along, the next section of Rerum Novarum to be covered will be §26-42.

Catholic Social Teaching gaining political traction in the UK?

Gap between rich and poor
growing fastest in Britain

This recent article on the BBC News web site suggests that British citizens sick of the corrupt state of politics and culture in their country and looking for ethical guidance are turning to Catholic social teaching for inspiration. Why? Matthew Taylor writes:

I set out to understand more about these ideas, to find out why they are engaging so many different groups of people right now, and whether their current influence is likely to make any substantive difference to policy or politics.

Although its roots can be traced back not just to the Bible, but to the ideas of Aristotle, rediscovered in the 13th Century by St Thomas Aquinas, the modern expression of Catholic Social Teaching came in an encyclical - the highest form of papal teaching - titled Rerum Novarum and issued in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII.

The Pope offered the "gift" of Catholic social thought to a troubled world. He called on the one hand for compassion for the poor and respect for the dignity of labour and, on the other hand, for respect for property and the family - all held together by the core idea of the common good.

The encyclical can be seen as the Church both realigning itself towards the concerns of the urban working-class, but also seeking to find a path of reform as an alternative to the growing threat of revolutionary unrest. These origins offer one explanation for the current revival of interest in these ideas. For today too we live in a time of rapid change and social unrest.

It is heartening to think that Pope Leo's gift to a trouble world may keep on giving in our own day. Read more.

Rerum Novarum §1-25: Summary

For ease of reading, analysis and commentary will be posted separately from the summary. Numbers indicated in brackets correspond to the paragraphs of the translation found on the Vatican archive web site.

[1] Revolutionary change is no longer a mere theory but is now getting practical application in increased antagonism between workers and their employers. People at every level of society are consumed with these problems. [2] Since there are many different opinions about what should be done about the growing tension between workers and employers, it seems expedient for the Church to offer guidance by pointing out the principles that should guide public deliberations on the proper relationship between workers and employers. [3] No one would deny that, ever since the ancient trade guilds were abolished, working men have increasingly been taken advantage of by their employers, the powerless many being treated like slaves by a powerful and wealthy few. [4] The socialist “solution” is to do away with private property altogether so that no one can become rich and powerful, but this would actually result in much worse conditions for everyone – not too mention the fact that this “solution” is itself grossly unjust.

[5] Anyone who offers his labor for wages is seeking, besides the bare means of survival, to have a little savings, which for security’s sake he may invest in land. Private property, then, is simply a man’s saved wages given durable form. So when the socialists propose to do away with private property, they are depriving the working man of the right to invest his savings and making a better life for himself. [6] The socialist proposal also strips man of his humanity; unlike the beast who looks only to survive for the moment, man’s rational nature allows him to look to the future and to plan for its needs; therefore it is only human to wish to secure durable, stable possessions that will serve man's needs not just for today but in the future. [7] In order to do this, a man must have not only the use but also the possession of  land that will supply his needs. Since man precedes the State, he has the right to provide for his own needs, without intervention of the State.

[8] Even when the earth is parceled out to particular private owners, it still serves the needs of all, since those who are not landowners nevertheless procure the fruits of the earth with the wages earned as remuneration for their labor. So private ownership of property does not interfere with anyone’s opportunity to enjoy the fruits of that property. [9] Land is most fruitful when man cultivates it by means of his own ingenuity and toil; when he does so, he truly makes the land his own, and it is only just that he should, in fact, own it. [10] Therefore, to deny private ownership of property is to steal from a man the fruits of his own labor. [11] Private ownership of property, then, is just, according to natural law, and according to all just civil law. Moreover, divine law severely forbids coveting what belongs to another.

[12] So far we have been talking about just the individual man, but the argument becomes even more compelling if we consider man in his domestic context, i.e., as a husband and father. No human law can abolish the rights and obligations of marriage and the family. The family, in fact, is the most basic society, and precedes the State. [13] Since nature makes a man the head of, and chief provider for, his family, and since it is natural for a father to want his children to be able to carry on when he himself is gone, it is right that he should be able to provide an inheritance of property. And since the family precedes the State, its rights also precede those of the State; anyone who would deny this is detestable. [14] Therefore, the socialist idea that the State can interfere in the internal relations of the family is both wrong and unjust, although if a family is in such distress that it finds itself helpless and friendless, the family should be given public aid, since it forms part of the common wealth. Similarly, public authority should intervene when a household suffers from grave internal disturbance, in order to make each party behave justly, but these extremes are the only cases in which the State may intervene. So the socialist idea that the state can usurp the father’s place in governing the family violates natural justice and destroys the home.

[15] It is plain, then, that the socialist plan is destructive and unnatural. If the conditions of the masses are to be improved, the right to private property must be respected. Let’s consider what sort of remedy would be more just and effective. [16] It is appropriate for the Church to weigh in on this matter, since it is her task instruct men in how to live well, and She Herself cares for the poor and works for the good of all. [17] First of all, we must take into account human nature, which the socialists seem to ignore or pretend they can change by making all men equal. The fact is that all men are not the equal, with respect to natural abilities and proclivities. A just society provides opportunities for each man to take part in the way in which he is best able, and which suits him best. [18] Similarly, the socialists are lying or deluded when they promise that they can build a perfect world, free from suffering and injustice, and it is cruel for them to promise what can never be.

[19] One of the biggest errors of the socialists is to insist that the classes are naturally and inevitably hostile to one another – when, in fact, just the opposite is true. The classes need each other, for capital can do nothing without labor, and labor likewise needs capital. And both need the Church to help them act justly toward each other. [20] Workers must be dutiful in carrying out the labor for which they have willingly contracted, and they should behave with respect toward their employer and his property. Likewise, employers should respect the human dignity of workers, paying them a just wage and allowing them time to fulfill their familial and religious obligations. By no means may they take advantage of a man’s neediness to satisfy their own greed, nor should they manufacture ways to deduct from a man’s just wages. In fact, because the worker has such scanty means, those means should all the more be respected. These basic principles alone, if followed scrupulously, would suffice to maintain good relations between labor and capital.

[21] But the Church, following her Master, can do better than this, because She reminds men that God has created them for better things than what this earthly life can offer. Since we are just passing through this life on our way to eternal rewards, we should not cling to riches and other worldly goods, but simply use well whatever we have, be it little or much. Christ, by his own suffering, did not eliminate human suffering and toil, but transformed them into opportunities for virtue. [22] So the wealthy should beware lest worldly riches become an obstacle to eternal happiness, and should give generously of their surplus to those who have little. Whoever has been given much, in wealth, talent, or skill, should use it for the benefit of others. [23] And those who have little should remember that there is no shame in poverty, since Christ Himself became poor for our sakes. [24] The true worth of a man is in his virtue, which can be attained by rich and poor alike and will win for them both eternal happiness. In fact, God seems to prefer the poor and lowly, always showing them tender love, so the rich should be generous in giving and the poor should not be grasping. [25] If the rich and the poor alike keep these Christian precepts in mind, they will be bound together in bonds of love and brotherhood, realizing that they are both sons of God and co-heirs of Christ. Strife between the classes would cease if everyone bore these things in mind.

The Country Can Benefit from Catholic Social Teaching

In an interview published this weekend on National Review Online, Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, calls on Catholics to participate more fully in our national civic life and to answer Pope John Paul II's challenge to build a "civilization of love."

At one point in the interview, the interviewer, Kathryn Jean Lopez, brings up a question that has been a point of contention in the current political season: doesn't an insistence upon using Catholic social teaching as a guide for Catholic voters put the Church in the position of dictating who should get our vote? Anderson makes clear that the Church's position transcends mere partisanship.

LOPEZ: You make clear that Catholics should be “following Catholic social teaching in their own lives . . . withholding our votes from candidates and propositions that oppose Church teaching on matters of intrinsic evil.” You go on to say that this “should be done in every case, in every race for political office, regardless of the party of the candidate.” You continue, “It is impossible to say what party might benefit most in the long run,” but “if Catholics take such a stand, we could literally change the face of our country’s political debates.” But in the short term, doesn’t that mean not voting for Barack Obama? Is there a danger that Catholics will become too aligned with one party?

ANDERSON: There are candidates in both parties, seeking local, state, and federal offices. Some in each party are pro-life, some in each party are not. My point should not be taken simply in the context of one race, but in the context of all of them. We should apply an objective principle, and we should do so consistently. If we make exceptions based on party, it nullifies the effectiveness of the entire proposition. We need to get back to looking at our political choices from the perspective of the bible and our Judeo-Christian values. We shouldn’t conform our values to our political preferences.

 Anderson goes on to point out that religious liberty has long been at the service of the common good in the United States, giving the example of the Civil Rights movement.

LOPEZ: What can defenders of religious liberty learn from the civil-rights movement?

ANDERSON: The civil-rights movement was successful because it was in the right, and it was based on the Judeo-Christian principles that informed the history of this country and the lives of most Americans. The Judeo-Christian arguments so powerful then — for instance that all are created equal by their creator — are equally powerful in defense of religious liberty. We are no less American because we are people of faith. If anything, we are far closer to the great values that have shaped this country than secularists are. Americans are both a religious people and a people committed to the First Amendment. We should remember that. And we should, like those in the civil-rights movement, never be afraid to stand up for the truth, and to declare that faithful Americans are entitled to rights and protections guaranteed us not only by our Constitution, but, even more important, by God.

Read more.

You don't have to be Catholic to appreciate Catholic social teaching

Namesake of the Acton Institute

From the promulgation of Rerum Novarum up to the present day, Catholic Social Teaching has never been just for Catholics, any more than the concepts of charity and the common good are restricted to Catholics. It's good to see that non-Catholics are finding wisdom in the tradition of Catholic Social Teaching. In a recent article on the website of the Acton Institute, two Protestants, one Baptist and one Reformed, praise Catholic Social Teaching and its articulation by American bishops in this political season. Hunter Baker and Jordan Ballor write:

For people of faith, and even for people of no particular faith whatsoever, CST represents a praiseworthy model for responsible civil engagement in a diverse and plural culture. The tradition of social encyclicals was inaugurated just over 120 years ago with the promulgation of Rerum Novarum (Of the New Things) by Pope Leo XIII, which focused on the problem of poverty and social upheaval in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. This encyclical ushered in an era of sustained and substantive reflection on the social implications of the Catholic faith in the modern world, continued by a long line of noteworthy publications, papers, books, conferences, and debates. The most recent social encyclical appeared from the current bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, in 2009 under the title Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), which deals with (among other things) the challenges and opportunities of globalization and economic and political instability.

They go on to cite several tenets of Catholic Social Teaching as being of especial importance in the current political campaigns: subsidiarity, solidarity, and religious liberty. In conclusion they say:

To the extent that the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church reflect truth about the human person and society, they represent a boon to our broader social life as well as a challenge for other traditions to think as deeply and responsibly about the social implications of our respective faiths. The American political scene is better off for having Catholic Social Teaching, and faithful Catholics, involved in the public square. 

Read more.

The grandaddy of Catholic Social Teaching: St Augustine and the City of God

One could say that the source of Catholic social teaching starts long before the promulgation of Rerum Novarum. See the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistles. But as far as non-Scriptural sources go, I'd pick St Augustine of Hippo's City of God as the first Christian teaching to address the question of the well-ordered society, and the contribution that Christians can make to the common good.

You'll find a succinct summary of this massive work here on Sparknotes, and a book by book summary here on New Advent. The City of God was written as a response to the accusation by pagans that all of Rome's problems at the time were the fault of the Christians (sound familiar?). St Augustine first points out that pagan society carried within itself the seeds of its own destruction, and then goes on to show that although Christians are citizens of the City of God (a heavenly City), as "resident aliens" in the City of Man during their earthly lives, they can and should contribute to the common good of the society in which they live.

I've written a bit previously about this work, here where I summarize the introduction to the Image edition by Etienne Gilson, the French historian of philosophy and a Neo-Thomist philosopher in his own right. Here I go on to comment on what Gilson had to say.

Augustine's City of God is a timeless work relevant in any age, for the City of Man will always be looking for a scapegoat on which to pile blame for its own problems. Certainly that is the case these days.

How is abortion like slavery?

The principals in an earlier pro-life debate

One of the key principles of Catholic Social Teaching is respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. This principle comes into play in all sorts of "life issues" from abortion to euthanasia. In this article from The Catholic Thing, Randall Smith reminds us that a century and a half ago, some people contended that the morality of slavery was a matter on which good people could disagree, and on which politicians should compromise -- much as some argue about abortion today.

It would be a mistake to treat all issues as though they were of the overriding importance of slavery, but it would be equally a mistake not to realize that there are historical moments when injustices so fundamental arise that they simply outstrip all else, although the seriousness may not be clear to everyone at the time.

Abortion, he argues, is no more a matter of private "choice" or moral ambiguity than slavery was. Smith cautions Catholic voters:

The Church cannot compel, as governments often do; she can only appeal to the consciences of men and women of good will. Would this sort of clarity help? A Catholic with a properly formed conscience cannot vote for a candidate who favors allowing abortion over who one favors restricting it any more than a Catholic with a properly formed conscience could have voted for a pro-slavery or pro-Nazi candidate. Would anyone today argue that a Catholic would have been somehow justified voting for Douglas over Lincoln, or a Nazi over a Jew?

Don’t fool yourself. Those with ears, let them hear. 

Solidarity ≠ Socialism

In a series of guest blogs on the National Catholic Register web site, Benjamin Wiker has been clearing up some key points of Catholic Social Teaching. In this one, he tackles the principle of solidarity. "Whereas the principle of subsidiarity is generally ignored," he says, "the principle of solidarity is generally misunderstood."

Solidarity, in emphasizing the concern for the poor, is often taken to imply the Church’s hearty affirmation of socialism and/or the welfare state. That is as much a mistake, as to assume that the Church’s affirmation of private property and economic initiative implies the Church’s hearty affirmation of liberal capitalism.

...

Solidarity does not equal socialism. To state the obvious — no mean achievement these days — the Church wouldn’t support a view of solidarity that violated subsidiarity, any more than she would affirm a view of “rights” that included the “right” to abortion.

 So if solidarity isn't socialism, what is it? To find out, read the whole article.